BLOSSOM RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.), SIKAND TOWER, DR. HEERA SINGH ROAD, CIVIL LINES, LUDHIANA, THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MRS. MONICA NEGI WIFE OF SHRI VIJAY NEGI Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LUDHIANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-association has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the competent authority to initiate appropriate action on its representation, dated 13.05.2014 (Annexure P-4) against all the partners of M/s Sikand Builders, Ludhiana (respondent nos.2 to 8 herein), for violations in utter disregard to the provisions of the Punjab Apartment Ownership Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1995 Act") and not providing basic necessities such as car parking/lift facility, to the owners of the apartment, known as Sikand Tower, Dr. Hira Singh Road, Ludhiana,The petitioner-association has further prayed that the respondents be directed to remove all the encroachments and installations illegally raised by them forthwith. It is worth mentioning that vide order dated 27.4.2016, at the oral request of the petitioner, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short "the BSNL") was impleaded as respondent no.9 in the instant petition.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the partners of M/s Sikand Builders, Ludhiana, constructed a commercial-cum-residential complex instead of residential apartments known as Sikand Tower situated at Dr. Hira Singh Road, Ludhiana, and later on manipulated to get the non-compoundable violations compounded. The owners of the Apartments formed a registered association (petitioner), known as the Blossom Residents' Welfare Association, with an object to administer, manage, upkeep the common area, facilities, and common services, but the promoters did not transfer these facilities to the petitioner-association. Even in the sale deeds executed by the promoters, an assurance was given by them, to the members of the petitioner association, to provide lift and parking facility in the basement of the building but they, instead of providing the facility of lift and parking at the basement, have themselves encroached upon it and raised illegal structures therein. The promoters were carrying on illegal commercial activities in the basement as well as on the roof top of the building. It was only with the intervention by the public authorities, the petitioner-association could be able to get them removed. The owners of the top floor of the building are facing a constant problem of leakage of the roof, thereby causing a great danger to their lives by way of short-circuit etc. That apart, the promoters have illegally installed a Mobile Tower on the roof top of the building in utter violation of the guidelines formulated by this Court as it is established by now that the radiation emitting from the mobile tower cause a havoc to the lives of its residents. It is further the case of the petitioner-association that the plea of the promoters that since the members of the petitioner association have failed to pay them the maintenance charges for the common facilities, therefore, the same could not be provided to them, is false. However, the fact remains that the upkeep and maintenance of the building is to be taken care of by the petitioner-association, so formed, by the flat owners and not by the promoters of the building. In the end, the petitioner-association has prayed that a direction be issued to the developers/builders, to hand over the common facilities, besides the upkeeping and maintenance of building, to them.

(3.) All the respondents, except respondent no.8, have filed their respective written statements which have been placed on the record of the case.